How a leftist anarchist economy would work

[Comrade Hill]

I have been restricted to this forum for a reactionary post, so please don't be surprised if I accidentally say something offensive, I am still learning what communism and/or anarchism is.

Here are my questions.

1. Would an anarchist economy work in the United States, where there is a huge population of 300 million people? Is anarchism where no government exists, or where a direct democracy exists? Would a direct democracy work in the United States?

2. Lots of people say anarchism/communism is too idealistic. What are some arguments to prove that anarchism is a realistic and rational system that can be implemented?

3. What are some of the beliefs on national power by anarchists? Like in terms of economic power and military power. Many people say the United States is the most powerful economy in the world. Is that true?

Thank you. I hope you all will aid me on my journey towards leftism.

[the Left™]

Well to start I think when people think anarchism they misinterpret it as some choatic free-for-all society, but if we read authors and comrades like Bakunin, Proudhon, or Kropotkin we understand that anarchism is "replacement of contemporary bourgeois capitalism with direct industrial democratic organization" meaning the economic and political system are predicated on federations of labor unions making decisions collectively and democratically. As for the idealism argument I dont like this line of rationale because it is impossible to prove an inherent human nature outside of any material conditions, so to make a claim like many reactionaries do that people are unfit to live cooperatively and socially is so divorced from human potential and embedded in false consciousness perpetuated by ruling class opponents.

Also: the economy itself would be a gift economy meaning if someone puts say a mutually agreed upon amount-- 8 hours a day in they get access to any materials they would need(very basic interpretation)

A fundamental premise of anarchist thought is that authority of any kind is not self-justifying. Meaning, it is the burden of proof on authority to justify its coercion and regulation of natural human autonomy. So I would probably claim that anarchists a bloc(OMGWTFSECTARIAN YUCLAIMTHIS!1one!) see any sort of national power as dangerous.

[Red And Black Sabot]

1. Would an anarchist economy work in the United States, where there is a huge population of 300 million people? Is anarchism where no government exists, or where a direct democracy exists? Would a direct democracy work in the United States?

Country size does not matter as anarchism just like socialism is internationalist. For example... if we had anarchism it wouldn't be just greece or spain practicing anarchism. That doesn't work. Those borders would no longer exist. It would/should be world wide.
Number of people in a specific body of land however also doesn't matter as economies and decision making would be localized not centralized to some specific body that makes decisions that affect the rest.
The people who are affected by specific decisions would be involved in making them. Parents teachers and students would run their own schools and their curriculum for example, workers would run their own work places, communities would manage their own resources and help out their neighboring communities etc. As for major decisions that affect a large area or a larger body of people, the decisions would be made at the local level through some sort of assembly and then a representative would be chosen from that local body to take the decisions made to the higher body. This representative is not like a senator however in that they do not have the power to make decisions or impose their own opinion. They have absolutely no power over anyone else. Their job is specifically to carry the decision made at the local level up (bottom up etc.) and are recallable by the local assemblies if they over step their duties.
There is some disagreement weather this should be done by consensus or some sort of direct democracy though and I think it might just have to boil down to how the specific community chooses to self organize.
As for weather it would actually work in the US... There's a whole lot of work left to do.

2. Lots of people say anarchism/communism is too idealistic. What are some arguments to prove that anarchism is a realistic and rational system that can be implemented?

I think the idea that capitalism works is a bold face lie that benefits an extremely small minority or is just absolute ridiculous idealism. Capitalism is constant crisis, environmental degradation, and devalues humans. Anarchism however is experienced in many social interactions. When friends decide where to go for dinner or what movie to watch for example. It respects people enough to include them in the decision making process. As for larger scale, it has worked through out history and there are several examples of it from around the world. What kept it from spreading was largely external factors and not usually how the people involved acted toward each other in those situations. That said however there are still examples like the Zapatista territories in Mexico that have successfully maintained what some people would describe as a fairly anarchistic form of social organization. The spanish revolution successfully created and defended anarchism in Catalonia for years. The Paris commune was a spontaneous manifestation of this as well which points to something deeper in the human condition.

3. What are some of the beliefs on national power by anarchists? Like in terms of economic power and military power. Many people say the United States is the most powerful economy in the world. Is that true?

We want to destroy power and the power that can't be destroyed ought to be made as horizontal as possible so everyone has equal access to it.
As for the United States being the most powerful economy in the world... Capitalism is also international... It's not about our country vs. theirs but class vs. class.

[Comrade Hill]

Alright, thanks very much guys, I have been kind of left wing for years, but I think this whole anarchism thing fits my views pretty well.

Before I convert, I just have a few more questions.

1. If countries all agree to share power equally and internationally, how can you assure that no country is going to go back on it's words and start a war to gain power? And how would all human beings agree to share power equally?

2. How would maintaining order work? Like in terms of crime and gangs. Would there be a police force or something?

And I've also heard about the quote "To each according to their ability, to each according to their need"

How do you determine how much someone "needs?"

[RGacky3]

1. Would an anarchist economy work in the United States, where there is a huge population of 300 million people? Is anarchism where no government exists, or where a direct democracy exists? Would a direct democracy work in the United States?


Its not direct democracy perse, all though sometimes, it does'nt mean there is no government, it means there is no instution of power or domination, there can very well be governance but its democratic, and not institutionalized.

In the US it would be THE US, it would basically be federalized, in the sense, of communities controlling things that affect them and for bigger situations they coordinate.


2. Lots of people say anarchism/communism is too idealistic. What are some arguments to prove that anarchism is a realistic and rational system that can be implemented?


THats not an arugment, they'd have to say exactly WHAT part of it is too idealistic? Its about as idealistic was democracy was in the middle ages.


3. What are some of the beliefs on national power by anarchists? Like in terms of economic power and military power. Many people say the United States is the most powerful economy in the world. Is that true?


Yes, thats not argued by anyone as far as I know.


1. If countries all agree to share power equally and internationally, how can you assure that no country is going to go back on it's words and start a war to gain power? And how would all human beings agree to share power equally?


We can't assure that, we can just minimize the risk by limiting any power that people have and getting rid of institutions that cause war.

Also its not sharing power equally, if its something that just has to do with you, its only your buisiness and no one can tell you what to do, if its something that involves multiple people its something they have to organize and deal and so on.

You assure the egalitarian power by not allowing institutions to take power.


2. How would maintaining order work? Like in terms of crime and gangs. Would there be a police force or something?


I'm sure there would be some decentralized community policing, but I don't think you'd need an institutionalized police force.

[RGacky3]

Keep in mind Anarchism is not a system, its a philosophy.

[Bud Struggle]

Keep in mind Anarchism is not a system,...

That may be why no one has ever made it work.

[Tim Cornelis]

That may be why no one has ever made it work.

Or... not.

[RGacky3]

That may be why no one has ever made it work.

... Its not a system .... Stupid ...

Thats like saying frying is not a food, its a way of cooking "yeah thats why nobody ate frying."

[RGacky3]

But anyway, everytime its been put into practice, it resulted as it was expected to result.

But I get it, your just trolling, you have nothing to say, so you throw out bullshit.

[Comrade Hill]

Okay thanks for addressing my questions guys. So Anarchism isnt against government or organization, it's against the state. I see now. I'm starting to like this.

If there was a community police force, how would carrying weapons work? Would citizens carry weapons?

I've never really been a fan of guns or violence, or the 2nd amendment for that matter. But I guess people should have that right.

Also, since there's no private property, would there be any privacy?

[#FF0000]

Also, since there's no private property, would there be any privacy?

Yeah. People can own homes and all that. There's no private property in the way of the means of production but there's still personal property.

[Robert]

Can I keep my toothbrush?

[Comrade Hill]

Yeah. People can own homes and all that. There's no private property in the way of the means of production but there's still personal property.

Ohhh okay thank you.

Now I'm waiting for someone to address my question about weapons.

[MarxSchmarx]

okay, so weapons.

Weapons are "needed" presumably because some party is unwilling to accede to a logical argument, or an ethical claim, or numbers. So the only way to get them to comply is to change the balance of power as would be expected under sheer physical might to shift so that whoever holds the weapons carries the prevails in a disagreement.

Note this is merely a variant of the "might makes right" argument. Weapons are needed only insofar as it is presumed that at the end of the day it is only firepower that matters.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Can I keep my toothbrush? Well I won't be mad if you refuse to let me borrow it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ohhh okay thank you.

Now I'm waiting for someone to address my question about weapons.


okay, so weapons.

Weapons are "needed" presumably because some party is unwilling to accede to a logical argument, or an ethical claim, or numbers. So the only way to get them to comply is to change the balance of power as would be expected under sheer physical might to shift so that whoever holds the weapons carries the prevails in a disagreement.

Note this is merely a variant of the "might makes right" argument. Weapons are needed only insofar as it is presumed that at the end of the day it is only firepower that matters.

I'm lovin what you say here. But I don't think it is an answer to the question :lol:

I never had a stance on the gun topic growing up (and I was always political). I never owned a gun, nor wanted to. And I kind of thought guns should be banned, but I knew that wouldn't work, was pointless, and stupid. I was also a martial artist who owned various staffs, swords, chucks, and lightning hands ;) so it was really a hypocritical stance anyway.
So when I heard "if you take away the guns, only criminals will have guns" that made sense to me. I was also always ferverent about the coming revolution so it made sense I might need it to fight off some oppressive government.

Normally I would just have said "yes you can keep your guns, we're revolutionaries." But I wanted to give you a sense of how I came to the position to see if it helps you clarify your own stance.